Brad Cooper Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder of Nancy Cooper

[Madeleine74]

Convictions have been overturned based on lies by prosecutors in closing arguments when they have been shown to have influenced the jury. It is certainly unethical and against the rules of professional conduct.

Simply not a factor in this case. It wasn’t a part of the defense’s brief for the appeal.

Further, there was a point during BZ’s closing where he specifically told the jury if there was anything argued in closing that didn’t match what they (the jury) heard or didn’t match their own notes, they should go with their own memory and their own notes as their source (and not go by what the attorneys were arguing in closing).

 

[oenophile]

Jessica wasn't just mistaken. She lied during her 911 call - told police Nancy's cell was in her car when it wasn't. Then that very day she lied to police again and told them that she made painting plans with Nancy by phone the prior evening. She said it again a week later. Finally when police looked at her phone records and saw that there was no call between them that day, she changed her story to "Oh. I was at their house and made the plans in person". I have testimony to prove this and will post it if you want me to.

Now tell me why someone would lie to police about something like that. She forgot? Something from the previous evening? Forgot that she was at the Cooper's house? Not likely. Did she lie because there were no painting plans? That seems more likely than her having forgotten about how she made the plans.

Because her friend was missing and she wasn't thinking straight. Same reason that Brad forgot things or didn't remember precisely what happened during his interview and deposition.

 

[oenophile]

Further, there was a point during BZ’s closing where he specifically told the jury if there was anything argued in closing that didn’t match what they (the jury) heard or didn’t match their own notes, they should go with their own memory and their own notes as their source (and not go by what the attorneys were arguing in closing).

And he shouldn't have said that. It is not his job to instruct the jury. That is the judge's job.

 

[Madeleine74]

And once again, WHY did Brad so graciously agree to plead guilty and take the fall and agree to spend another 6 plus years in state prison, plus give up all parental rights to his minor children, to cover for the "real killer(s)"? Please answer that.

You've insisted multiple times that JA and/or her husband were somehow involved in or had knowledge of Brad's wife's murder. Yet Brad agreed to sit in state prison and be a convicted felon and murderer forever, something that he will carry with him the rest of his life? He signed away his rights. There is no appeal. There is no do-over. He made that choice. To cover up for someone else?

 

[Madeleine74]

And he shouldn't have said that. It is not his job to instruct the jury. That is the judge's job.

That wasn't considered "jury instruction." Nor was it an error. Nor did the defense object. Nor did the defense use that or any part of the state's closing in their brief. It's a non issue. Interweb posters are pizzzzzed at BZ and pizzzed at what BZ said and made that into an issue when the defense didn't.

 

[JusticeFever]

The state couldn't even grasp and present correct facts at the plea hearing, even when referring to notes. even when it didn't matter any more.
I think Brad was smart to take a plea deal especially after he turned down previous offers,and I haven't seen anyone say why would a guilty man pass on a plea , only why would an innocent man take one.

It works both ways..

 

[sunshine05]

Because her friend was missing and she wasn't thinking straight. Same reason that Brad forgot things or didn't remember precisely what happened during his interview and deposition.

She had an opportunity a few days later to clear it up if she was simply too distraught that day, but she didn't. She only changed her story because she was forced to. She probably never imagined police would try to verify it with the phone records.

https://justiceforbradcooper.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ja-time-inconsistencies.pdf

 

[sunshine05]

Simply not a factor in this case. It wasn’t a part of the defense’s brief for the appeal.

Further, there was a point during BZ’s closing where he specifically told the jury if there was anything argued in closing that didn’t match what they (the jury) heard or didn’t match their own notes, they should go with their own memory and their own notes as their source (and not go by what the attorneys were arguing in closing).

No, but there is a length limit to the brief and they went after the bigger items. It is disturbing to me that you believe a prosecutor lying during closing statements is acceptable.

 

[sunshine05]

She didn't say the cell phone was "in the car." She said, "and her cell phone is there." Interweb posters assumed "is there" meant "inside the car" because she had mentioned a purse in the car, and I too thought this at first. However, it meant the phone was there (at the house) i.e. not with Nancy herself/on her person. The point that was being made in context was Nancy was missing, she didn't have her purse (with her), she didn't have her car (with her), and she didn't have her cell phone (with her).

I do find it interesting that every single syllable uttered by JA is scrutinized far more than anything the defendant ever said. His own attorney admitted he lied (he said this during opening statements), yet that's been denied over and over.

Why do you hold JA to a standard and point a finger at her when you don't do the same to Brad? Brad's own attorney admitted Brad lied.

And why aren't you pointing a twisted finger at the friend of murder victim, Laura Ackerson? That friend also got worried about her missing friend, also called the police to report her missing, told the police Laura was in a contentious custody battle with the babydaddy, and helped police in the initial phase of the investigation. And yet that friend was deemed as helpful and concerned and not one person ever insinuated (or even outright claimed as has been done to JA) that she was somehow involved in the murder. If someone did that to me, what has been done to JA, spreading and publishing lies on the Internet and claiming I was involved in a murder, I'd be consulting an attorney to bring a libel and/or slander suit.

Did you hear JA's trial testimony? She said she got to the house and the first thing she did was look in the car and saw NC's cell phone.

Dismukes testified that he arrived, looked in the car and saw only her purse on the seat.

Hayes testified that NC's phone was inside on the table when he arrived at the home.

It's funny how you are trying to scare me with a suit for telling lies about someone. Everything I have written about JA is factual and I have not said she was "involved in the murder". You said that. I am very disturbed about all of her lies and the fact that she seemed to know that NC was dead when she placed the 911 call. She is either psychic or she knew something, thus the knowledge that she didn't have her phone with her.

 

[oenophile]

That wasn't considered "jury instruction." Nor was it an error. Nor did the defense object. Nor did the defense use that or any part of the state's closing in their brief. It's a non issue. Interweb posters are pizzzzzed at BZ and pizzzed at what BZ said and made that into an issue when the defense didn't.

I don't recall exactly what he said in that part, but if it is as you describe, then it certainly was jury instruction. But I'm not saying it rose to the level of error.

People are angry at Boz because he flat out lied on several occasions. The most egregious, in my opinion, was when he lied to the judge and said that the defense had all the evidence. That was a bald-faced lie. And it is unforgiveable and disgusting.

 

[oenophile]

And once again, WHY did Brad so graciously agree to plead guilty and take the fall and agree to spend another 6 plus years in state prison, plus give up all parental rights to his minor children, to cover for the "real killer(s)"? Please answer that.

If he is innocent, why would he do that? Because a) the state demonstrated that they could obtain a conviction even if his is innocent; b) he already spent six years in jail; and c) he calculated that risk of the state obtaining another false conviction was high, and that the tradeoff of perjuring himself and spending another six years in jail was more desirable than risking a lifetime in jail. You can argue that this is a selfish decision, but it is also a rational one, even if I disagree with it.

 

[oenophile]

She had an opportunity a few days later to clear it up if she was simply too distraught that day, but she didn't. She only changed her story because she was forced to. She probably never imagined police would try to verify it with the phone records.

https://justiceforbradcooper.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ja-time-inconsistencies.pdf

It isn't a matter of clearing up memories. You can create false memories and believe them to be true.

Most people don't lie about things that are easily verifiable, like through phone records. They lie about things that are not verifiable.

 

[Hez]

I don't recall exactly what he said in that part, but if it is as you describe, then it certainly was jury instruction. But I'm not saying it rose to the level of error.

People are angry at Boz because he flat out lied on several occasions. The most egregious, in my opinion, was when he lied to the judge and said that the defense had all the evidence. That was a bald-faced lie. And it is unforgiveable and disgusting.

BBM - Did the defense ever file a motion for sanctions against the prosecution for failing to provide all the disclosure in a timely fashion or for any other alleged prosecutorial misconduct? I only ask because Jodi Arias' lawyer has filed numerous motions for prosecutorial misconduct during that case (all without merit mind you and all denied of course). After the CA case, the judge actually filed a bar complaint against Jose Baez (that went nowhere of course, even though Baez lied throughout that entire trial, amongst other things :gaah. I was just curious to see if anything like that happened with this case. :thinking:

 

[ncsu95]

Madeleine74, would you advocate prosecutors withholding or lying about evidence to secure a conviction?

 

[oenophile]

BBM - Did the defense ever file a motion for sanctions against the prosecution for failing to provide all the disclosure in a timely fashion or for any other alleged prosecutorial misconduct? I only ask because Jodi Arias' lawyer has filed numerous motions for prosecutorial misconduct during that case (all without merit mind you and all denied of course). After the CA case, the judge actually filed a bar complaint against Jose Baez (that went nowhere of course, even though Baez lied throughout that entire trial, amongst other things :gaah. I was just curious to see if anything like that happened with this case. :thinking:

Not that I know of. This was part of the evidence that they were hiding behind National Security in order to withhold. But in this case, the prosecution eventually handed it over to the defense during the trial. This was addressed in the appeal. Boz was trying to mislead the judge in order to get a favorable ruling. I am not certain that this would fall under prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[MyBelle]

Because her friend was missing and she wasn't thinking straight. Same reason that Brad forgot things or didn't remember precisely what happened during his interview and deposition.

She lied about multiple things in order to implicate Brad. First, Brad's wife was missing, then found dead and he was fighting for custody of his children. It's impossible for me to believe his emotional balance was the same as a neighbor, who risked nothing.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

It isn't a matter of clearing up memories. You can create false memories and believe them to be true.

Most people don't lie about things that are easily verifiable, like through phone records. They lie about things that are not verifiable.

That's not the case with pathological liars who lie about multiple things and can't keep track of their lies.

JMO

 

[sunshine05]

Not that I know of. This was part of the evidence that they were hiding behind National Security in order to withhold. But in this case, the prosecution eventually handed it over to the defense during the trial. This was addressed in the appeal. Boz was trying to mislead the judge in order to get a favorable ruling. I am not certain that this would fall under prosecutorial misconduct.

That's not really accurate. After Gessner refused to allow Ward to testify, Kurtz called Johnson as a witness and questioned him about what would happen with the cursor files when one scrolls across a screen and zooms in on a portion of the map. He wanted to either 1) See the cursor file document that the FBI generated when they recreated the map search or 2)Have Johnson duplicate the search on any computer in the court room to see how the cursor file would appear. The judge refused to order that the document be produced and again cited national security and he also refused to allow the recreation in court. This would have conclusively proven that the files were planted because the times would have incremented as they should. The cursor files of the map files had identical time stamps which is impossible in a dynamic search with clicking and zooming. At that point Kurtz asked the judge to recuse himself and requested that he declare a mistrial due to his bias throughout.

So, prosecutorial misconduct was very much at play in the Cooper case. I could give you many examples of it with the way they misrepresented evidence about Brad's shoes, Nancy's shoes, the dress, the spoofed call, the Harris Teeter route, the 32 second pass code and just about everything they presented. Very dishonest. This is probably the worst case I have ever seen but no one will ever do anything about it. It is extremely rare for them to ever be held accountable for misconduct.

 

[RR0004]

If he is innocent, why would he do that? Because a) the state demonstrated that they could obtain a conviction even if his is innocent; b) he already spent six years in jail; and c) he calculated that risk of the state obtaining another false conviction was high, and that the tradeoff of perjuring himself and spending another six years in jail was more desirable than risking a lifetime in jail. You can argue that this is a selfish decision, but it is also a rational one, even if I disagree with it.

The defense has the general advantage upon retrial. IMO. They now know what to expect and are better prepared to counter the State's arguments. BC already won an appeal. Why would he think he would in all likelihood be convicted? IMPO, the ball was in his court (no pun intended), and he pled guilty.

 

[MyBelle]

The state couldn't even grasp and present correct facts at the plea hearing, even when referring to notes. even when it didn't matter any more.
I think Brad was smart to take a plea deal especially after he turned down previous offers,and I haven't seen anyone say why would a guilty man pass on a plea , only why would an innocent man take one.

It works both ways..

Brad's plea was coerced. They used his children to extort it. He couldn't risk another unfair trial with the same Judge who had a public humiliation at the hands of the appellate court. That court and the state Supreme Court should be concerned about the volume of cases needing retrial in because of judicial "mistakes." Which is why I think the decision was made to review the Jason Young case.

This is definitely a case needing review by the Innocence Commission.

JMO